What does a DM owe his players?/ Are the rules written in stone?

[Odhanan]

And with that kind of backstory, or something as neat, destitution can be well done and fun. But it does need to be well done to be fun.

Oh absolutely. It needs to be well done, which means you do that at a moment for maximum surprise effect, and then don't use it again, at least for some time. You could use other uncontrolled psychic stuff as well of course, like reading a guys' mind when you don't want to, that kind of things. The most important would be to keep it optimal, to still leave some margin to the player to choose his own actions, get the spotlight from time to time using his choices in the first place, but not let it go to the other extreme where the other players would just become spectators or secondary roles. That would suck.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

It was me. And I said that in my experience, and "Not an accusation", so I don't know if I came off as a punk, but I really don't know how to qualify it any more.

Naw, you didn't come across as a braying jackass or anything, I just figured I'd clarify the way I do it.

I agree. A GM also has to know when to let go.

That's the line too many people can't seem to find.

 

[Harmon]

“What does a GM owe his Players?” Without reading the post (which I have) the title just annoys the hell out of me.

A GM owes his Players nothing. They should be thankful they have a GM that is willing to put in the effort.

To answer your question though (IMHO)- alert your Players as to your campaign intent.

Few years back I did the old bait and switch campaign, because I wanted no one prepared for what I had in mind. The campaign died, very quickly, the Players were completely thrown by the campaign and could not recover in time to save the campaign. In recourse I started just plainly telling my Players everything I have planned for my campaigns. Plots, some hooks, etc. Course that might have something to do with why I am no longer GMing, but that is beside the point I suppose.

To shorten my response- let your Players know your intent, they should be more then happy to just be involved in a campaign, to know that you have put dozens of hours into what takes then just a couple to go through (I generally figure about 2-5 hours per hour of play for prep time).

Good luck, and hope all goes well for you and your campaign.

 

[FireLance]

“What does a GM owe his Players?” Without reading the post (which I have) the title just annoys the hell out of me.

A GM owes his Players nothing. They should be thankful they have a GM that is willing to put in the effort.

Well if you don't like to use the word "owe" how about the word "responsibility"? If a person agrees to do a job - even if it is unpaid, volunteer work - shouldn't he make a decent effort to do the job well instead of doing shoddy, substandard work because he doesn't "owe" anything to the people he's doing the job for?

 

[Harmon]

Well if you don't like to use the word "owe" how about the word "responsibility"? If a person agrees to do a job - even if it is unpaid, volunteer work - shouldn't he make a decent effort to do the job well instead of doing shoddy, substandard work because he doesn't "owe" anything to the people he's doing the job for?

All to often I see or hear Players proclaim (or imply) that their GM "owes" them for their very pressence as Players. To me that Player does the least amount of work at the table, so a GM owing a Player is like your boss expecting you to pay him. It doesn't make sense to me.

Course that it just my perception, and the way I feel about it, everyone has their own perception and feelings about it. Players usually feel that my thoughts on it are less then accurate, while GMs are- ahh, let it go, when they start GMing they will understand.

Peace all

 

[Gentlegamer]

Are you suggesting that wanting a balanced playing field prohibits a sense of wonder?

Several responses have indicated that it isn't possible for experienced players to experience sense of wonder regarding RPG magic.

 

[Hussar]

Several responses have indicated that it isn't possible for experienced players to experience sense of wonder regarding RPG magic.

I'm very, very confused about these SOW ideas. How wonderous is a +1 sword? I'm sorry, but, even when I was 10 years old, playing Red book Basic DnD, I wasn't all shivery with sense of wonder over a +1 sword. It's a +1 sword. Ok, cool. Great. It's shiny... It helps me hit better..... ummm..... yeah, it's a sword.

How can people get all goose bumpy about magic items when most parties include both a wizard and a cleric firing away with magic in almost every round of every encounter?

Maybe I'm just not enough into the whole storyteller thing to get jazzed about magic items. They're magic items. So what? I'm much more jazzed about a facinating story or a memorable interaction than I am about a magic lumpy thing. Magic items are just another mechanical aspect of the game. I don't get all wonderous about being able to lay on hands, so why should this potion of cure light wounds light me up?

On another note, how can a DM possibly be trying to maintain balance in a game where he hands off items THREE TIMES higher in value than the total gp a 10th level character should have? A holy avenger is 120k gp. A 10th level character should have 49 k TOTAL. To then start to complain about game balance seems a tad ridiculous.

 

[Felix]

Several responses have indicated that it isn't possible for experienced players to experience sense of wonder regarding RPG magic.

Well, gosh, then it must be true.

Like Hussar said, what's so special about a +1 Sword? Who friggin cares? Give me a sword that is the Goblin Nation heirloom, which any and every goblinoid will fight to the death to retreive from non-goblin thieves, and you've got something near interesting; even if it's a +1 Shortsword or a +3 Humanbane Shortsword.

Just because it's magical doesn't mean it's special... it's special if you make it special. And just because you've gamed for 15 months and two weeks doesn't mean you suddenly can't appreciate that. It's like saying someone who has been drinking wine for more than two years can't appreciate the mixture of flavors as well as he used to could.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm very, very confused about these SOW ideas.

I agree. Also, I play D&D for the magic. I don't want to play an historic simulation of the dark ages. I want a world full of magic. Not to the level of magic as technology, but it should still be somewhat common. Most books where I attain SOW over the magic involves magic systems that just would not work in an RPG. The part that makes them wondrous also makes them impractical.

 

[DethStryke]

Such great discussion. though this really should end soon,

Mods? could we just lock & bundle all these threads, and, maybe, preserve them over in the archives? I know I'm not the OP, but I think that he and I have been at each other's throats enough. It's time to walk away.

Or.... you can simply exercise personal restraint and not verbally attack him while the rest of us continue the threads in an adult-like manner.

I'm glad to know you're done though. The cat fight was getting old on both ends.

Okay, here's what it boils down to: are you trying to simulate realistic economic behavior, or are you trying to give your players a fun time? Apparently, from DethStryke's post, you're not going to be able to do both with him.

That's not true in the big picture. I'm a huge fan of realistic economic behavior, in general. In another D&D game I play in, I run a wizard who owns a magic wares shop and recently worked out management of one of the three main warehouses at the docks. Our collective party has power in two of the other port-towns on the island, and I look forward to exerting market control through that network for starters. Realistic economies also address one of my biggest pet peeves in adventuring: where do you sell textiles, art and furniture if found while adventuring?

Like almost everything else in D&D, it's the balance that makes the difference. When Economic considerations are used to add flavor to the world, that's good. When they are used to press the jack-boot to your neck when your put in a poorly thought out and unfair situation that had no in-game reason other than the DM (accidently?) screwed you? That is not good.

Realism should generally give way to not screwing the players in situations that come out of un-related human error on the DM's part rather than in-game forces.